Judge denies Indian Lake lawsuit

A request to stay development of multi-family dwellings and commercial docking in the Indian Lake lodge area until a civil case is resolved was denied Thursday.

The case, which challenges the validity of a zoning ordinance, was filed by Indian Lake residents Mary Jo Takacs and James Lyons.

“I am satisfied that the zoning hearing board did a reasonable job and I deny the request for a stay,” Court of Common Pleas Judge David C. Klementik ruled Thursday.

The petitioners requested a stay, claiming the zoning hearing board of Indian Lake Borough’s adoption of the amended ordinance was “arbitrary, capricious, a manifest abuse of discretion and an error of law.”

Advertisement

Richard T. Williams Sr., solicitor for the zoning hearing board, argued there is no validity in the claim.

He told Klementik that “the zoning hearing board’s approval of Ordinance No. 144 was rendered after careful deliberation and based upon the credible evidence submitted.”

Before the amended ordinance was enacted, several council members were appointed to review problem areas of the zoning ordinance and to recommend changes. Public hearings were held. Safety concerns were addressed by retaining an expert, he said.

An amended zoning ordinance, adopted last June by Indian Lake Borough Council, permitted a local developer to construct multi-family dwellings and commercial docking in the lodge area.

The local developer, Terry St. Clair, was Indian Lake Borough Council president and a member of the zoning committee when the ordinance was amended and when his company’s application for a building permit came under fire. He recused himself when any decision was made that effected the development company and his property. Over the past few months, St. Clair resigned from the zoning committee and the borough council to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, he said.

One of the petitioners’ lawyers, Robert P. Ging Jr., of Confluence, said the ordinance was written to benefit St. Clair. He called the amended ordinance a “classic case of spot zoning.” Spot zoning occurs when a small area of land or section in an existing neighborhood is singled out and placed in a different zone from that of neighboring property. In Pennsylvania spot zoning is illegal.

Ging said that although Klementik made a fair and impartial decision, “obviously we are disappointed in his decision.”

He said that bringing the case to the county courts was the right way for his clients to go.

“There is so much self-interest involved in the process. We didn’t feel we get a fair shake until we get here,” Ging said. “We will keep going with an appeal.”

St. Clair Resort Development was issued a building permit for a second building on the site in question. That action was challenged by a group of residents. The zoning hearing board will meet at 4:15 p.m. Monday to decide if the challenge is valid or the permit issuance should stand.

“There is no basis under the new ordinance for the zoning board not to find in my behalf,” St. Clair said. “The permit is 100 percent legal.”

His first townhouse facility has been constructed. He was issued a building permit for that building in September 2006. He is planning to construct about 20 units — several per building — on more than 40 acres of land adjacent to the lodge he restored over the past few years.

The petitioners assert density and traffic concerns are the reason behind the lawsuit.

Takacs is claiming the effect on her property, which adjoins property owned by St. Clair, will create increased traffic and has the potential to decrease her property value.

“We are waiting for the zoning board’s decision before we can decide what our next step will be,” said St. Clair.